Re: [tsvwg] CALL to revoke last call: Re: Request for working group feedback on draft-kuehlewind-system-ports (6th March, 2020)

["Rodney W. Grimes" <[e-mail]>]

Mirja,

	Thank you for digging out these background messages, please see in-line reply.
Rod

> Hi Rod,
> 
> thanks for your feedback. The last-call list is actually rather new and in experimental stage still as announce on the ietf@ last September:
> 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/LiB_dlvv3ZFlTF8hGp7GbGngqSg
> 
> This mail actually explicitly says:
> " We propose to create <[e-mail]>; and to direct last-call
> comments and discussions there (the last-call announcements would
> still go to <[e-mail]>;, with "reply-to" set to the new
> list)."

And a read of that in which they talk about duplicating everyone from
the ietf@ list into the last-call list and then mentioning unsubscribing
would lead one to possibly conclude you could drop the ietf@ list and
not miss anything, when infact you would miss the announces.

> 
> As this is in experimental stage, there is of course room for improvements and feedback is appreciated. I would recommend to either provide your feedback on the ietf@ list or directly to the IESG. Or if you prefer that, I can also forward this on behave of you to the rest of the IESG...?

Since I am not a member of that list I feel it would probably be best if you would forward my concerns to both the ietf@ list and the IESG.

> As I said below I also wasn't aware of this but it didn't impact me because my filters were set up accordingly. However, this is also logical because this is the same behavior as it was before: last calls where always sent to ietf-announce but previously discussion (reply-to) was directly towards ietf@. The only change in this experiment was to change the reply-to field in order to off-load some load from ietf@. Again, this is not written in stone and feedback is welcome.

Ah hah, this was not clear from my reading, I still feel that it would be of significant benifit to send the announcements to both lists, as someone else mentioned if anything it would allow threaded forward and backwards tracking from said announcement which often does not work when the thread is cross-list.

> Sorry for the confusion!
> 
> Thanks!
> Mirja

And again, thank you for your time in clarification,
Rod

> 
> ?On 18.02.20, 16:31, "Rodney W. Grimes" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>     > Hi all, hi Joe,
>     > 
>     > A correction from my side (after checking with the secretariat): last call announcements are only sent to ietf-announce and not to last-call. Only the reply-to is set to last-call in order to have the discussion there. This was also a surprise to me and I didn't notice this myself as I apparently filter both in the same folder. I will follow up on this.
>     > 
>     > However, in conclusion all announcements went out correctly and you should subscribe to ietf-announce to see all last calls!
>     >
>     > Mirja
>     
>     Hello Mirja, Joe, et al.
>     
>     It seems that the above state should be more clearly documented.  From the mail list descriptions:
>     
>       About IETF-Announce  
>         English (USA)
>     
>         The IETF Announce list receives announcements about IETF meetings, the activities and actions of the IESG, the RFC Editor, the NomCom, and other announcements of interest to the IETF community. This is for authorized posters only. No discussions. Announcements only.
>     
>       About last-call  
>         English (USA)
>     
>         Discussion list for IETF Last Calls.
>     
>         To see the collection of prior postings to the list, visit the last-call Archives. 
>     
>     
>     I find it ambiguous at best that last-call announcements are only sent to IETF-Announce which is a high volume list with all sorts of announcements yet fail to go to the very list in which they should be "discussed."  Further I would consider it a systemic failure if something is posted to IETF-Announce soliciting discussion and was allowed to move forward without any discussion, no matter where that discussion would need to take place.  The fact that this document went to last call via announce and had no discussion should of been a red flag that there was some type of problem with engageing the proper audiance.
>     
>     Formally I would like to request that the following actions might be taken to help with this ambigous state:
>       a)  All last-calls should be sent to BOTH the ietf-announce list and the last-call list.  They should be marked reply-to: last-call.
>     
>       b)  The desciription of IETF-Announce have the fact that last-call announcements are sent there as well.
>     
>       c)  If a and b are not possible then the description of last-call should be updated to reflect the fact that the announcment of a last call is NOT sent to that list, and that one must read IETF-Announce to see them.
>     
>     Regards,
>     Rod Grimes
>     
>     > ?On 18.02.20, 10:41, "tsvwg on behalf of Mirja Kuehlewind" <[e-mail] on behalf of mirja.kuehlewind=[e-mail]> wrote:
>     > 
>     >     Hi Joe,
>     >     
>     >     for some reason this only went out to the ietf-announce list and not the last-call list:
>     >     
>     >     https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/C3YU0i15ZSTaYHPMKOe_8sGVmLk
>     >     
>     >     This is a tooling issue as it should have been sent to both. I will tell the secretariat to send it manually and raise a ticket to fix this in future. Thanks for flagging this!
>     >     
>     >     Mirja
>     >     
>     >     
>     >     
>     >     On 18.02.20, 05:38, "tsvwg on behalf of Joseph Touch" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
>     >     
>     >         
>     >         
>     >         > On Feb 17, 2020, at 8:20 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     >         > 
>     >         > Joe,
>     >         > 
>     >         > On 18-Feb-20 12:06, Joe Touch wrote:
>     >         >> I object on process grounds at a minimum and call for its "last calls" 
>     >         >> to be revoked by the sponsoring AD and WG chair as follows:
>     >         >> 
>     >         >> 1) this doc went to "IETF last call" (according to the doc tracker) 
>     >         >> without ever being announced on the IETF-wide last call list
>     >         > 
>     >         > I don't understand what you think is wrong, procedurally.
>     >         > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/C3YU0i15ZSTaYHPMKOe_8sGVmLk
>     >         > is a standard Last Call message, and it's a 4-week last call as required
>     >         > for non-WG documents. As far as I can tell that fully respects RFC2026 etc.
>     >         
>     >         We have a Last Call mailing list. I searched there and found (and still find) nothing. What?s the point of the Last Call list then? 
>     >         
>     >         Joe
>     >         
>     >         
>     >         
>     >     
>     >     
>     > 
>     > 
>     > 
>     
>     -- 
>     Rod Grimes                                                 [e-mail]
>     
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Rod Grimes                                                 [e-mail]